W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:30:31 -0700
Message-ID: <3D1BA016.FA475CD5@webmethods.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Gudge,

> [3] and [4] contain no local element decls, so value of
> elementFormDefault is moot

Agreed. However, certainly something to keep in perspective as we update the
schemas for 1.2 (or does it make sense to add anyway?).

> [5] does have a single local element decl for 'part' and so
> elementFormDefault should be 'qualified'

I think we need capture this in the issues for the schemas.

And perhaps one (editorial ?) to capture the issue with use of
default-namespace best practice for the examples (that you cite below).

Regards, Prasad

> Gudge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2002 19:11
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..
>
> Thanks (I was mistaken). The examples in the spec that don't prefix
> things do use default namespace declarations. So they are indeed
> qualified and I agree that elementFormDefault should remain "qualified".
>
> Now, the schemas fo SOAP, HTTP and MIME  bindings ([4],[5],[6]) don't
> set elementFormDefault (and hence it defaults to "unqualified").
> Shouldn't they be changed to require elementFormDefault="qualified"?
>
> I concur with Gudge's opinion below. There are many examples in the spec
> that do just this (i.e. use default namespace and not qualify elements).
> Perhaps we should consider revising them as well..
>
> > I would VERY strongly suggest that we never use default namespaces (
> > like example 3 above ) in our examples. In my experience default
> > namespaces confuse things, whereas explicit prefixing makes everything
>
> > clear.
>
> Regards, Prasad
>
> [3] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap
> [4] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http
> [5] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/MIME
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..
> Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
> Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:25:30 -0700
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>
> I think you may be confused between 'qualified/unqualified' vs
> 'prefixed/unprefixed'
>
> The elements in the following 3 examples are ALL qualified, but in the
> last example they are unprefixed.
>
> <wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
>   <wsdl:message />
> </wsdl:definitions>
>
> <p:definitions xmlns:p='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
>   <p:message />
> </p:definitions>
>
> <definitions xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
>   <message />
> </definitions>
>
> In XML Schema elementFormDefault defines whether EIIs matching local
> element declarations ( those that appear inside complex type definitions
> ) must have a non-empty [namespace name] property. In WSDL all elements
> are qualified, so elementFormDefault='qualified' is correct. If we
> change to 'unqualified' then the first example above would look like
> this;
>
> <wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
>   <message />
> </wsdl:definitions>
>
> I would VERY strongly suggest that we never use default namespaces (
> like example 3 above ) in our examples. In my experience default
> namespaces confuse things, whereas explicit prefixing makes everything
> clear.
>
> Gudge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2002 01:01
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..
>
> All,
>
> The WSDL Schema ([1] or [2]) sets the elementFormDefault="qualified".
> This, AFAIK requires each element to qualified in the instance
> documents, requiring one to use ns qualifiers with many of the elements
> defined in the WSDL spec (<wsdl:message ..> <wsdl:service ..>
> <wsdl:portType ..> etc. where the namespace
> wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/").  Most of the WSDL instance
> examples in the spec violate this. Why do we need to keep this? Can we
> change elementFormDefault="unqualified" and be done with it? Or am I
> mistaken here?
>
> Regards, Prasad
>
> [1] http://www.w3c.org/tr/wsdl
> [2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 19:26:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT